Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Not that I am even remotely qualified to state what O Sensei thought...

I tend to believe that he saw aikido as a transformative process, a base formed around the principles of aiki to achieve personal growth and fulfillment...peace, harmony, happiness.

He kept the principles that allowed us to walk the fine line, showing us alternatives to conflict...showing us that we have other choices and options other than to cause pain, damage and suffering.

I think we have enough problems with people understanding the purpose of aikido without those things thrown in there! If they were emphasized...it would only serve to further confuse!

What would be the point of teaching them. That said, just from studying the basic principles of aikido, I think i have pretty much figured out where to use those things in the places where they would belong!

In the early 1990's Hal von Luebbert developed the 21 Grip system for suppressing attacks. The system is pure Genius. Hal was a military tactics expert and applied "suppression" rather than "attrition" to police Defensive Tactics simply because suppression has a better combat efficiency value.. He was also interested in helping police find humanitarian ways of dealing with resistance. Hal was also an aau state wrestling and Judo champion, an Olympic judo coach with 3 national championships under his belt. He was also belted in Jodo and Aikido.

The system did not go far as it took about 3-5 weeks to train in for proficiency. I was given permission to post portions of Hal's system on U-tube. I hope to do it this week.

That would be interesting. I can't find any references to it other than this on the web. There are police that do train. Some have been in my classes and trained for months or years. Clearly, those that do have the inclination to train, something that takes only 3-5 weeks to train proficiency in is nothing in terms of time commitment.

This blurb can be found on the homepages of a couple of different aikido information websites. Usually listed under "Cool Facts".

"In a recent Florida court case, a man resisting arrest charged the officer involved for using excessive force when his wrist was broken during the application of an Aikido technique. The case reached the Florida State Supreme Court which ruled that the offender broke his own wrist by resisting the technique."

Although I'm having trouble finding any more precise documentation of this, it doesn't really seem to be "urban legend" territory.

Assuming that the events occurred as described, it seems to me that had the officer had an advanced level of aikido training, he would potentially have been capable of not only subduing the perpetrator but also of changing the technique so as not to allow the perpetrator to "break his own wrist". To me, this speaks of the possible dangers of having a working, yet limited knowledge of the art. In the case of LEO's, it seems safer for both parties, physically for the perp, and legally for the officer, to either train diligently and refine the techniques to as high possible level, or not to use them at all.

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration...

That would be interesting. I can't find any references to it other than this on the web

The marketing of Hal's system never really took off because it was too many hours and Hal was uncompromising.

There was a magazine put out by the American Deputy Sherrif's Association that featured his first seminar. I can upload photos of it. But I do not know how to do so on this site.

Reynard Jackson and Ashley Isaacs assisted at the seminar. Most of the R&D was done at Ashley's dojo in Corpus Christi.

One thing that makes Hal's system unique is that he decided to just use it in his competitions in Judo. (nothing else...no traditional Judo). he tested his kata with discipline and took it all the way to a national Championship. Now that is integrity testing. I know of no other person who has developed a DT system who can make such a claim.

My Police DT certifications expired back in the 1990's. Do they still teach the "Three Minute Rule"?

I.E. if a student (cop) cannot learn a technique within three minutes, throw it out... I read this rule in the introduction to the PPCT Instructor's Manual.

Hi Chris,

Nope - thank goodness. However, that mindset is still there - the idea that "natural" "easy" "quick to learn" movements are not only objectively possible but best.

The thing that always gets me is when you look at this kind of understanding from the reverse - such that moves that are natural, easy, and quick to learn are moves made for folks that are uncoordinated, prone to quitting anything that requires effort, and slow of mind and body. You know what I mean - how many of the folks that love "natural" "easy" "quick to learn moves" really think of themselves as physically, spiritually, and mentally challenged?

That would be interesting. I can't find any references to it other than this on the web. There are police that do train. Some have been in my classes and trained for months or years. Clearly, those that do have the inclination to train, something that takes only 3-5 weeks to train proficiency in is nothing in terms of time commitment.

Mr Von Luebbert has a link on his page concerning judo (item #7), in which he discusses his "21 System".

One of the finest Aikido men I have ever met was Mits Yamashita of Yoshinkan fame. His courage in calling helio Gracie's grappling, "Aikido on the ground". is obviously famous.

In law enforcement, I know allot of focus has been on training police to understand groundwork.

1) Are police getting into it?
2) Is there any work being done to include the hidden knife once the fight goes to the ground?
3) How is ground grappling and gun retention being delt with?

There is a venture now into groundwork, however, in my opinion, it's still very much in its beginning phases. Therefore, things like utilizing one's other weapons (e.g. knives) is not yet all it can be. Additionally, things like having knives or not is not yet universal - not everyone wears them, so it's hard to make a system around them. Moreover, those that wear knives wear them in their own personal places - often with little thought of how said place affects deployment. As for gun retention, I think things are even worse. The stuff I've seen is too akin to sport ground-fighting techniques - which doesn't really work all that well when one is wearing a waist full of weapons. For example, one technique asks to do a kimura against a gun take-away attempt. The technique probably works well in unarmed fighting, but on the job...? There's a lot of shortcomings to it. Personally, I'm working on developing some other ground-fighting options, options that are all geared toward getting back up and having full access to one's arsenal again. The efforts seem promising. I will try to post you two videos of this - try to film it this weekend and get up on the net as well, so you can see what I'm trying to talk about.

From the videos, we can talk more. You are asking some very good questions - thanks for raising them in the thread.

I always felt that the easiest response to a grab at my sidearm would be to draw my tactical folder and cut the aggressor's knuckles or forearm. Efficient, meets lethal force with less than lethal force, and has a high combat efficiency value. Would LE DT policy allow for that. I agree, most police love carrying the folders but have never really thought through policy and tactics.

Quote:

As for gun retention, I think things are even worse. The stuff I've seen is too akin to sport ground-fighting techniques - which doesn't really work all that well when one is wearing a waist full of weapons.

Much has been said about how sport fighting ain't the street. Now we are learning that sport fighting definitely ain't the same as making an arrest under color of law and while toting a bag of intermediate weapons and communications equipment.

Quote:

Personally, I'm working on developing some other ground-fighting options, options that are all geared toward getting back up and having full access to one's arsenal again.

That sounds smart. A tactical retreat from the grapple so that your real weapons, (1) authority that can bring extra officers and even a helicopter on the scene, (2) distance so that your sidearm can do the negotiating,
(3) your primary mission which is to command the overall incident until backup arrives.

That sounds like Aikido.

The efforts seem promising. I will try to post you two videos of this - try to film it this weekend and get up on the net as well, so you can see what I'm trying to talk about.

The Gracies developed a law enforcement program called GRAPLE, Gracie Resisting Assault Procedures for Law Enforcement. Not a bad course of eight hours and concentrates a lot on weapons retention, gun and knife take-aways, and positioning suspects for cuffing. They also have a pretty slick practice to counter the "21 Foot Rule" type of attack. I personally don't enjoy the grappling much (although my son is a Gracie instructor and a cop as well), but I attended the course and thought it was pretty good. A couple of the weapons retention techniques looked pretty similar to katate kosa dori ikkyo and felt right at home for me. Worth looking at for LE instructors.

In fact, my agency at least, has no policy whatsoever concerning knives. Many are like this though. However, I'm one of the lucky ones that has an agency that allows for a great deal of officer discretion when it comes to situations that might involve a weapon (any weapon) retention. If you are about to lose your firearm, and you pull your knife and use it, you are going to be within policy.

"A tactical retreat from the grapple so that your real weapons, (1) authority that can bring extra officers and even a helicopter on the scene, (2) distance so that your sidearm can do the negotiating,
(3) your primary mission which is to command the overall incident until backup arrives.

That sounds like Aikido."

Yes, that's what I'm thinking. :-) Again, I'll try and get this on video soon.

We have done a lot of stuff with angle of deviation, which allows us to interrupt the OODA loop of the attacker/suspect right from the beginning, within some basic attack/ambush scenarios (armed and unarmed). We have had positive results regarding the things you listed above (whether we are on the ground or standing) this way. Right now, we are looking to figure out how to bring this element and all its advantages to something like a knife deployment. We have managed to do this with other equipment on the duty belt - using one weapon to defend against the attempted taking of another. However, all of these weapons are better able to be drawn from the front or side of the body (which means we do not have to put our arms/hands behind us) without losing their level of retention (due to holster retention devices and designs). This is often not the case for knives. In fact, most folks I know wear their knives in a back pocket. This has one having to put his hands/arms behind him/her to get it - which is not a good thing, or even a possible thing, in fight/retention situation. Additionally, the weapon is only secured by a clip - which means it in itself has zero retention technology built in. We are looking to see what's possible and not possible from within our live training environments. My feeling, however, from the beginning, is that technology is going to have to step in (i.e. allowing for a quick deployment from a secured location). I know Emerson knives has worked on the quick deployment issue, but I've yet to see someone addressing the retention side of things. Right now, the way things stand, I am pretty sure I'm going make a lot of officers sorry they are wearing that knife in a pocket with just a clip to keep it on their person when we go to our live training environments. Additionally, I'm wondering if can really deploy that weapon under a barrage of energy and progress - such as one would experience in a gun retention situation. My feeling is no, or if I could, I'd rather deploy another weapon (e.g. taser to protect firearm, firearm to protect taser).

Below I've posted some stuff I've found on Youtube. One of them has a guy using the knife in a gun deployment situation. For me, in that video, and in the others, not enough movement. I just don't like the idea of standing still and expecting leverage or striking to work like when one is taking pictures for a manual. My experience is that that stuff never works and if there is something less than "never," I'd like to say that that stuff works even less when one is wearing a duty belt, trying to have authority that can bring extra officers and even a helicopter on the scene, allow for distance so that your sidearm can do the negotiating, and have it remain possible to complete your primary mission, which is to command the overall incident until backup arrives.

If an individual is within 21 feet from the officer, even if the officer has his gun pointed at the suspect, the suspect can close the distance and stab or otherwise injure the officer before he can shoot and stop the attacker. This doctrine is taught much like a religion in basic police academies and is the basis for the concept of shooting center mass. The belief is that unless the officer manages a fatal, man-stopping shot, the suspect inside of 21 feet will still get him.

What the GRAPLE Course teaches is for the officer to fall backwards and extend his legs towards the suspect while firing his weapon. We've all seen a Gracie in the ring holding off an opponent with just this movement. Frankly I was sceptical until we practiced it a number of times. We were attacked by a couple of different assistant instructors who were real jocks, incredibly fit and very, very fast. They were armed with training knives and the students were armed with red guns. Using a modified Weaver stance, I was able to get off one shot before I was blitzed and repeatedly stabbed. A few folks didn't get off the first shot!

By using the GRAPLE technique, I received cuts or slashes to my legs most of the time, but was able to keep my attacker far enough away to prevent any attack to my groin, torso or head and I was able to "fire" multiple rounds into his torso at close range. Not an absolute prescription for self-defense, but a pretty good tool for officer survival.

As I said earlier, I don't like grappling and ground fighting as a sport or martial art, but this GRAPLE stuff is worth looking into. The weapons take-aways are very similar to what you'd see in Krav Maga and there is a strong Aikido flavor as well.

Hope this helps explain what they are teaching. Oh yeah, since you're in California, this is POST Certified too.

A left side tactical folder (preferably an Emerson) trumps the grapple over the sidearm.

Regarding knife retention, a left side folder is probably "hiding in plain sight" as the perp is likely focussed on the known weapons like the sidearm, baton and mace.

The other videos were not that impressive. Run of the mill stuff.

I have seen some of GRAPPLE. I would rather not make the ground fight my primary defense to the 21 foot rule. It seems a good thing to train for when there is no other choice. I always felt falling to the weak side was best. I.E., it is harder for a gunman who is right handed to scan to his left. If you fall to his left, you get a 1/4 second advantage.

I liked to disturb police who had the traditional answer to the 21 foot rule knife attack by using an old Filipino tactic called "two to throw and one to go" As I closed the gap, I would draw and throw my right side blade, then my left side blade and finally close the gap with my right side alternate blade. The attack was so overwhelming that most guys froze.

But if we approach the principle of mai-i and apply it to this problem an answer emerges, Whatever comes at you has to pass this point. Just outside of that point is the time to move off line and continue shooting into center mass.

I doesnt matter if the thing coming at you is a flying knife or an arm with a knife in it. In the old videos on "surviving bladed weapons" the drill had the officers back peddling and moving off line so soon that the bad guy could track their movement and continue the attack. They did not train on an exact point in which to move off line. They had no idea how to set up a stance that was efficient in moving off line efficiently.

If an individual is within 21 feet from the officer, even if the officer has his gun pointed at the suspect, the suspect can close the distance and stab or otherwise injure the officer before he can shoot and stop the attacker. This doctrine is taught much like a religion in basic police academies and is the basis for the concept of shooting center mass. The belief is that unless the officer manages a fatal, man-stopping shot, the suspect inside of 21 feet will still get him.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for sharing.

I'm sure you know this stuff, but I'm going to explain it so folks that don't know can chime in on the conversation/thread.

First, the 21 foot rule is a little different from what you described - this quote is from an article on the 21 foot rule:

"Originating from research by Salt Lake City trainer Dennis Tueller and popularized by the Street Survival Seminar and the seminal instructional video "Surviving Edged Weapons," the "rule" states that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet."

So, a little different... It's not about the officer already having his weapon out, nor about taking a single shot. The officer has to draw his weapons from the holster and take two shots aimed at center mass. This takes much longer - when things are moving at the speed of life - than having the weapon already out and taking one shot. The draw itself takes the most time - and nowadays takes longer (for the average cop) because of level III and IV retention holsters. I myself wear a level IV retention holster - a choice I made to carry since most officers, when shot, are shot with their own weapon. My draw is on average between 1 second and 1.5 seconds from the standstill. That's ample time for athletic folks to bridge a 21 foot gap - and my draw is fast for my hoster's retention level, according to national averages.

From your brief description of the GRAPLE option and strategy, I'm under the impression that they changed the scenario to account for the difficulty in drawing a duty sidearm from a retention holster when falling down to assume an open guard. With the weapon already out, you can kind of gloss over how difficult it actually is to draw while falling, or how long it is to wait to draw until you have fallen all the way to the ground, while you can at the same time appear to present an option to the 21 foot rule findings. Does that make sense? Let me try again: I think they tweaked the rule to make their tactic appear more viable than it is.

On the number of shots: The original two shots to center mass are part of the traditional understanding of how ineffective a pistol round truly is toward actually stopping a willful attacker. The idea is that these two FIRST shots are part of trio (potentially at least) - such that one is putting two shots in a place they are most likely to hit (the largest part of the body) so that a third shot can be placed on the head (i.e. medulla oblongata) - the kill shot.

Personally, I don't think cops should train to shoot a given number of times, or train to aim for different targets after a given number of shots. I think that tips the odds too much away from us when the crap is hitting the fan. My idea is this: Shoot the target as many times as it takes to neutralize your reason for shooting him/her, and put these shots in their most likely place of hitting the target. So, for example, in the 21 foot rule scenario, I would put as much steel on target - at the largest cross section that is shown to me - to have the knife wielder stop advancing toward me. If that means a whole magazine (14 rounds of .40 SW) in his/her torso - that's what it means. I'm not going to aim for a smaller target in that situation just because I shot twice. Moreover, shooting twice and hitting the center of mass twice is not the same thing, and it is very difficult to tell this difference in the middle of a gunfight. That said, training for two shots doesn't cut it for me - even more so for one. For that reason, I don't like the idea of standing still or of falling down (which doesn't really allow for a multitude of shots before you start getting cut - as I would expect the ineffectiveness of the handgun round in real-life and look to be able to shoot as many times as necessary (e.g. a lot). Additionally, if I am wanting to shoot a lot, I would not want to shoot multiple shots with my legs on the other side of the muzzle, with my legs moving frantically, and getting cut (legs have arteries too - right?), while I was quite immobile on the ground. I would imagine one is quite prone to shooting his/her own legs in that that kind of situation. And, let's not talk about multiple attackers and being on the ground in a lethal force situation...

Again, my opinion is that GRAPLE tweaked the 21 foot rule to make its options look more effective than they actually are. For me, knowing we cannot address all situations, even that we don't need to when we train consistently, I still want to address as many "Oh crap!" elements as possible (e.g. multiple attackers, my pistol rounds not acting like in the movies, etc.). So, no open guard for me. One thing, and I guess I'm being critical here - mostly because this is for real, with folks lives on the line, folks just trying to help society/culture/others - why would one opt to utilize a tactic (i.e. the open guard) when your own system has tons of moves for getting past said tactic (i.e. passing a guard)????! I don't get that, but I don't get why one charges $1000 per officer for the training. I train folks for free: three times a week at our dojo, at the Academy for instructors for 8 weeks, etc. - no cost. It's a public service, not a money making opportunity. Okay - enough bitching from me. Apologies.

Here's other stuff on the 21 foot rule - from the article:

Here's some relevant findings done by the Force Science Research Center out of U of Minn.:

Once he perceives a signal to do so, the AVERAGE officer requires 1.5 seconds to draw from a snapped Level II holster and fire one unsighted round at center mass. Add 1/4 of a second for firing a second round, and another 1/10 of a second for obtaining a flash sight picture for the average officer.

The fastest officer tested required 1.31 seconds to draw from a Level II holster and get off his first unsighted round.The slowest officer tested required 2.25 seconds.
For the average officer to draw and fire an unsighted round from a snapped Level III holster, which is becoming increasingly popular in LE because of its extra security features, takes 1.7 seconds.

Meanwhile, the AVERAGE suspect with an edged weapon raised in the traditional "ice-pick" position can go from a dead stop to level, unobstructed surface offering good traction in 1.5-1.7 seconds.

The "fastest, most skillful, most powerful" subject FSRC tested "easily" covered that distance in 1.27 seconds. Intense rage, high agitation and/or the influence of stimulants may even shorten that time, Lewinski observes.

Even the slowest subject "lumbered" through this distance in just 2.5 seconds.

Bottom line: Within a 21-foot perimeter, most officers dealing with most edged-weapon suspects are at a decided - perhaps fatal - disadvantage if the suspect launches a sudden charge intent on harming them."

Here's another relevant quote:

"Among other police instructors, John Delgado, retired training officer for the Miami-Dade (FL) PD, has extended the 21-Foot Rule to 30 feet. "Twenty-one feet doesn't really give many officers time to get their gun out and fire accurately," he says. "Higher-security holsters complicate the situation, for one thing. Some manufacturers recommend 3,000 pulls to develop proficiency with a holster. Most cops don't do that, so it takes them longer to get their gun out than what's ideal. Also shooting proficiency tends to deteriorate under stress. Their initial rounds may not even hit."

Another one:

""Experience informs us that people who are shot with a handgun do not fall down instantly nor does the energy of a handgun round stop their forward movement," states Chris Lawrence, team leader of DT training at the Ontario (Canada) Police College and an FSRC Technical Advisory Board member. Says Lewinski: "Certain arterial or spinal hits may drop an attacker instantly. But otherwise a wounded but committed suspect may have the capacity to continue on to the officer's location and complete his deadly intentions."

Another one:

"Relying on OC or a Taser for defeating a charging suspect is probably a serious mistake. Gary Klugiewicz, a leading edged-weapon instructor and a member of FSRC's National Advisory Board, points out that firing out Taser barbs may be an effective option in dealing with a threatening but STATIONARY subject. But depending on this force choice to stop a charging suspect could be disastrous.

With fast, on-rushing movement, "there's a real chance of not hitting the subject effectively and of not having sufficient time" for the electrical charge--or for a blast of OC--to take effect before he is on you, Klugiewicz says.

Lewinski agrees, adding: "A rapid charge at an officer is a common characteristic of someone high on chemicals or severely emotionally disturbed. More research is needed, but it appears that when a Taser isn't effective it is most often with these types of suspects."

Another one:

"The truth is that where edged-weapon attacks are concerned, "close-up confrontations are actually the norm," points out Sgt. Craig Stapp, a firearms trainer with the Tempe (AZ) P.D. and a member of FSRC's Technical Advisory Board. "A suspect who knows how to effectively deploy a knife can be extremely dangerous in these circumstances. Even those who are not highly trained can be deadly, given the close proximity of the contact, the injury knives are capable of, and the time it takes officers to process and react to an assault.

"At close distances, standing still and drawing are usually not the best tactics to employ and may not even be possible." At a distance of 10 feet, a subject is less than half a second away from making the first cut on an officer, Lewinski's research shows. Therefore, rather than relying on a holstered gun, officers must be trained in hands-on techniques to deflect or delay the use of the knife."

On these last two quotes: The 21 foot rule was more a kind of research investigation than it was an actual real-life analysis. In other words, statistically, way more physical confrontations, armed and unarmed, happen well within 21 feet. 21 feet is luxury most on the job encounters do not have. So, speaking of 30 feet, or more (as I have seen in other articles), is just not the way to go. For me, a tactic should be able to work from normal interviewing distances (three to five feet) for it to be considered viable. I'm not saying we should do the same exact thing from 21 feet and from 5 feet, but in principle they should be the same. Thus, if I need 30 feet to draw my weapon and put a charging suspect down (even assuming that can happen in two shots), then the principle is invalid because there's no way I can do that at 3-5 feet.

I got some stuff on tape today - I hope I can get it posted by Saturday. This should be enough for all folks to chime in on what is presented on the videos.

My answer is the same: move first, draw on the move, keep moving, shoot at the largest cross section till the target ceases your reason for shooting him/her, perform a combat reload, regain any environmental awareness you may have lost from the battle, find your breath/center yourself, radio in your situation as is called for.

To answer your other questions, at further distances, we move early, because of the throwing knife, and/or any possible gunshots. We are going to be tracked if the attacker is coming in to striking/cutting range, but we want to move first in case we are dealing with ranged projectiles (e.g. moving targets are harder to hit) - with us assuming we will not know what all the attack entails. Moreover, if they attacker has no ranged projectiles and has tracked us as they approach, we just cut the different angle on the move (which is actually easier than cutting an angle from the standstill (think boxing).

When we use these principles from the interview stance, sure, we are cutting angles from a more stationary position, which in turns allows for less tracking from the attacker. Still the principle is the same: DO NOT DRAW FIRST. MOVE FIRST. Then one is able to pull out his/her weapons, take the shotS if necessary, and not be so open to out-of-the-holster-retention problems.

I don't disagree with you at all. My original training was what you described, and that was with the standard Border Patrol inside thumb break holster. I started carrying a Bianchi breakfront holster before they came on the market on a beta test for the original designer and it was slower yet, but much more secure. At that point we were taught that you couldn't draw and fire before the suspect could close the distance.

Subsequently the view started to change and testing back at the FBI National Academy found that even with the weapon drawn, most couldn't fire quickly enough to get a round to center mass, hence my description.

As you mentioned, only in the movies does the suspect fly backwards, regardless of the weapon. Shotgun and rifle rounds may drop the individual vertically, but most likely he will continue moving forward. Obviously a round that interrupts the CNS may stop an individual instantly. The Miami FBI shoot-out is a great case in point. I don't remember the number of rounds fired at this point, but both of the suspects had sustained multiple mortal wounds in the first few seconds and still managed to kill two agents while walking around the cars at the scene. Even as badly wounded as they were, they also wounded several other agents as well. They didn't succumb to their wounds until a wounded agent shot them in the head at almost point blank range.

The "one to the head, two the heart" technique is largely a military practice for room clearing with sub-machine guns or rifles and has very little application in civil police work. As you suggest, it is better to keep shooting until the bad guy stops doing what caused you to shoot him in the first place. Unfortunately, the general public often has problems with the number of rounds fired, at least in the media. Roy Rogers could always shoot the bad guy's gun out of his hand, couldn't he?

Back on track with GRAPLE.....not a bad addition to the tool box, but it isn't the solution either - nothing is a complete answer. Chemical agents, electrical discharge systems, batons, and firearms all have their purpose. No form of MA related skills work all of the time either. Thankfully all of these things work most of the time and common sense, a survivor's mindset, and reasonable physical condition are the best tools available.

It is great listening to you guys talk. I guess even Sykes and fairbairn would say at this point that that there really is nothing new under the sun for those who developed themselves beyond the basic training.... only more data to prove what the real pro's discovered by necessity..

Quote:

At a distance of 10 feet, a subject is less than half a second away from making the first cut on an officer, Lewinski's research shows. Therefore, rather than relying on a holstered gun, officers must be trained in hands-on techniques to deflect or delay the use of the knife."

In the video "Surviving Edged Weapons", Danny Inosanto charges the unwitting officer and knocks him on his ass in a linear assault, cutting him in the process.

In Explosive Aikijujitsu, Bernie Lau shows a similar scenario where he takes a circular retreat while presenting his weapon from the holster. To be sure, it is an unsecure snap-type holster. Not a system 3 or 4. And, if I remember correctly, he moves at an arch, telegraphing to his opponent so that he is easily tracked.

If you did not view this clip of my 10 year old training partner moving at angles from mai i, check it out.

He learned this within three weeks. I know that is more than what you are given to teach a skill set. I also understand that you have to teach to the lowest common denominator when training groups of police. But this kid can handle knife attack, keep his center, stay off line and present a weapon... not to mention locate and use barriers in the process.

I have never been taught "one to the head two to the heart" in the military, nor have I ever taught that myself. It is "center of mass". Maybe that is a particular school of thought, or an individual opinion, but not anything I have ever experienced. Head shots are hard to index on the move and not very good targets.

Machine guns are area based weapons, designed to mass firepower. Not that you do not take aimed shots, but they are wider area effects weapons.

In many instances today, Military is dealing with the similiar ROE as civilian police when clearing buildings and rooms. Not that I am an expert by any stretch of the imagination of civilian police tactics or ROE, but we do have to consider "friend and foe" and target discrimination is important.

I bow to your current training. Mine in the military is dated to be sure. My 782 gear was leather and my rifle was a muzzle loader! What the troops are dealing with today in terms of rules of engagement are far more similar to civil law enforcement today than what used to be the military years ago.